CHAPTER 4: THE PROPHETIC IMAGINATION OF HOSEA WITHIN ITS SOCIO-
4.2 Let Us Strive to Know Yahweh
4.2.2 The Jacob Tradition
4.2.2.1 Hosea 12:3-5 [2-4]
We may assume that Hosea‟s audience was well acquainted with the traditions that the text alludes to without going into any particular detail (cf. Holt 1995:34). What is significant about this passage, however, is the mention of Bethel by its proper name. Hosea certainly has no affectionate feelings toward Bethel, because “in every other passage where Bethel is mentioned ... (Hos 4.14; 5.8; 10.5) it appears under the slanderous name
!wa tyb
„house-of-evil‟” (Holt 1995:38). I would suggest that Hosea deliberately does this, so that his audience may know exactly what tradition he is alluding to while, at the same time, he stimulates memories of a time when the name had a favourable connotation (cf. Macintosh 1997:487). Bethel is indeed a key aspect in the life of Jacob (Holt‟s 1995:39). The traditions of Jacob, as recounted in Genesis, will be considered to shed some light on the patriarch‟s traditions as alluded to in Hosea. However, a caveat by Holt (1995:32) is worth noting, who suggests “that there is only limited agreement between the Jacob traditions of Genesis and those that Hosea refers to [which] has created a number of problems for research.”66
65 Again different sets of numbering for Hoses 12 occur between the HB text and the English translation. Again the English numbering will be maintained as discussed above. The second reference to the Jacob cycle, Hos 12, is treated in both Good‟s (1966:148-151) and Holt‟s (1995:47-51) studies. See their works for reference.
66 This suggestion is closely bound up with her preposition that Hosea is the first written text which recounts the Jacob tradition. But since a source-critical analysis is immaterial to the research undertaken here, I will refer to the work of Holt (1995), Good (1966) and their bibliographical details.
76 Adhering therefore to her advice would render a word for word comparison futile. Instead the general sense, which the Genesis account will provide us with, will prove sufficiently helpful.
Hosea 12, which recounts the Jacob traditions, opens in vv. 1 [11:12] and 2 [1] with a summary of the present dealings of Israel in the international sphere. These amount, according to Hosea 12:1 [11:12], to lying and, the catch word for the chapter,
hm'r>mi or
deceit, which word will appear again in v. 8. The unit combines vv. 1 [11:12] and 2 [1] in a copula connecting traders, and by implication Israel, with corrupt economic practices. The text however does not tell us who the object of Israel‟s corrupt practices is. However, it appears that Hosea can only account for these corrupt practices by recalling the tradition of Jacob, again an example of his literary style which we have identified. This tradition properly starts off in an oracle in v. 3 [2] with abyrI
clause, linking the Jacob cycle with the present situation in Israel67. Good (1966a:140) posits that this tradition “serves the prophet as the pattern of the present Jacob, the nation itself.”
Accordingly, Good argues that “[we] must keep this double sense in mind in considering the rest of the passage” (Good 1966a:140; Holt 2003:39).
Hosea 12:4a [3a] recounts in the first line the birth story of Jacob in which he deceived68 his brother. The verbal root used (
bq[
) is a word play on Jacob‟s name. Holt (1995:33) proposes that“the same etymological traditions surrounding the name of Jacob ... in Gen 25:21-34; 27:35-36”
might be reflected in v. 4a. In view of the double meaning that Good (1966a:140) detected in this passage, he suggests that “the „brother‟ nation, Judah” might be alluded to here, especially considering the conflict that led up to the Syro-Ephraimite war. While this may be plausible, one has to wonder when reading v. 4 [3], whether Hosea did not mean Jacob‟s, and therefore Israel‟s,
67 The Masoretic Text reads „Judah‟, but both Holt (1995:31, note 3) and Good (1966a:139) translate it as „Israel‟
and present convincing arguments for this rendition. See their respective discussion and redactional considerations (Holt 1995:31, note 2; Good 1966a:139). Accordingly, Good‟s delineation of the pericope will be followed.
68 De Boer (cited in Holt 1995:33) suggests that the verb should be translated “he held on to the heel of his brother”, which is according to Holt “not so unambiguously negative as „deceived‟.” This is consequently also the route that Holt is taking, translating it as “supplant”, although she suggests that “the two traditions [Gen 25:26 and 27:36] have been elliptically worked together. In the elliptical version of Hos. 12.4a, therefore, the figure of Jacob does not appear unequivocally as a deceiver, but rather as a figure in whom two possibilities are found: he can appear as a warning and as an example.” This decision of Holt is predicated on demonstrating that Jacob is an example of determination and humility. However, this is not the sense of Hos 12 which starts off, as recounted above, with an unequivocal characterization of the nation as “lying and deceitful.” Hosea therefore makes allusions, Good (1966a:140) suggests, “by inference to the entire conflict between Jacob and Esau.” But this conflict is not only about the two brothers, which is the the same sentiments of Good (1966:140-141), “but the destiny of the two peoples” (Ska 2009:32; cf. Gen 25:11-12), with reference to Isaac and Ishmael and their descendants.
77 penchant for strife, not only in relation to his brother, but in relation to all around him (cf.
Shechem Gen 33:18-34) and not limited to the human level. It is also reflected in the second line, v. 4b [3b], and the first line of v. 5a [4a], which forms a copula in which the verbal root (
hrf
)again plays on the patriarch‟s name Israel. These allude to the traditions in which Jacob contends with God, and “the pun”, according to Good (1966a:141), portends the incident at the Jabbok in Gen 32:23-33. In Hosea, however, we only have “a virtual quotation of the key line of the story, the explanation of the new name bestowed on the patriarch” (Good 1966a:142).
Holt (1995:35-36; cf. Good 1966:149-151) suggests that two traditions seem to underlie the Jacob traditions in vv. 4b [3b] and 5a [4a] and only Hosea knows what they are. This suggestion though has a bearing on her decision concerning the object of the weeping in v. 5b [4b].
Although these elusive traditions of which, according to Holt, Hosea alone knows are immaterial for our discussion, what is important for us at this stage is a consideration of the object of the weeping in v. 5b [4b]. If Jacob is the subject, it means that the angel is weeping and, by implication, the deity. Holt (1995:) sees a problem with a weeping God and this problem she resolves by invoking Bentzen‟s (cited in Holt 1995:35) “parallel between Jacob‟s weeping and praying and Moses‟ intercessory prayer” (Deut 9:9-10:11) in which Jacob, like Moses, “uses all the usual ways of imploring God for a blessing and conquers.” Paradoxically this conqueror is left crying which is rather an odd reaction seeing he had won the struggle.69 Holt (1995:39) also chooses to read with Francisco (cited in Holt 1995:39) who suggests “that Jacob should serve as an example of a conversion that is to be imitated by Israel: Jacob deceived his brother, fought with God and won, but afterwards begged for mercy and was found and spoken to at Bethel.”
However, the Jacob tradition receives no romantic treatment in the book of Hosea and was, it would seem, rather approached with some hostility, for lack of a better term (cf. Good 1966:151). This will be demonstrated in the discussions which follow. Nevertheless, Holt‟s interpretation of the Jacob story stands or falls, depending on the scholars she chooses to constitute her argument with.
69 Macintosh (1997:483-487) suggests that “God gained the ascendancy.” Accordingly, “Hosea, having recalled the traditional interpretation of the name Israel … now spells out another interpretation of it and one more likely to be in accord with what we now suppose to be its meaning” (Macintosh 1997:485). Macintosh suggests that it is God who prevailed and not Jacob. For an interesting and different discussion see his account (Macintosh 1997:483-487).
78 The conclusions of Good are significantly similar to the narrative analysis of these traditions in Genesis by van Wolde (2003) whose ideas I will discuss below. Good (1966a:143) presents us with a sounder interpretation, based on the text‟s suggestion that Jacob, being the subject of the previous verses, seems more likely to be the subject also of the following verses. But, for the moment, we will limit ourselves to an interpretation for “Bethel” in v. 5c [4c]. As mentioned above, in Hosea Bethel is predominantly referred to by its pejorative name. Good (1966a:144) suggests that Hosea might be alluding to the “two meetings between Jacob and God at Bethel, which might ... be related to the complex of incidents in Gen [35]:1-15.” But this line also presents us with certain difficulties since the Bethel on its own and with the prepositional suffix, can be translated, according to Good (1966a:144), in eight different ways, and this number, if we want to complicate matters, can be increased to sixteen. The important consideration concerning Bethel, as observed by Good (1966a:145), is the double meaning attached to it, the same method already considered in v. 3 [2] with the double meaning attached to Jacob‟. This ambiguity of the name Bethel lies in the fact that it can indicate both a place and the name of a god (Good 1966a:145; cf. Jer 48:13; Gen 35:7), not identified with Yahweh. The pronominal suffixes in Hos 12:5 [4] on both verb (
WNa,c'm.yi
) and preposition (WnM'[
i) also have a “double referent”, both “him”and “us” (Good 1966a:146). Good (1966a:146), preserving the nuances of the verse, renders it as follows: “At Beth-el, he (that imposter deity) finds him/us, and there he speaks with him/us.”
Good (1966a:146) proposes that Hosea is alluding to the Genesis account where Jacob built an altar at Bethel which he named “El Bethel” (Gen 35:7). Good‟s (1966a:148) structural analysis of the passage in Hosea posits that “[the] indictment of Jacob/Israel, therefore, rests on his deeds, as mirrored in his names and the places he frequents („his ways‟, v. 3 [2]).” These deeds are immediately connected to vv. 8-10 [7-9], in which the “theme of ambitious ruthlessness, particularly in relation to the acquisition of wealth, links the piece with the prophet‟s review of the vicissitudes of Jacob” (Macintosh 1997:494). The deeds in both present and past situations are therefore linked with the noun
hm'r>mi
(deception, fraudulent, treachery). Therefore, the feasibility of Good‟s interpretation of v. 5 will be considered by diverting momentarily from the Jacob traditions in Hosea to a consideration of the Genesis passages on Jacob on their own merits. This was done in a trenchant narrative analysis by van Wolde (2003), to which I now turn.79